Classic Mustangs List Archive

302 vs. 289 (WAS: $7,500 for 65 conv.?)

Topic List Forum List Newer Older Start New Topic

302 vs. 289 (WAS: $7,500 for 65 conv.?) #1
mailbot Mail List Archive Bot ., Online, USA	Sep 20, 1997 06:25 PM Joined 15 years ago 59,279 Posts

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Max Watson (email redacted)

>>I've heard it [the 302] has poorer gas mileage and performance [than the 289]
>
>The 302 (heads) is a more efficient motor. You should get more performance!
>(Who is telling you this anyways?)

During the years the 289 was made, compression ratios were very high.
Therefore, they generated a lot more horse power than the common stock 302
- which generally has a low stock compression ratio. The exception being
the early stock 302s, and 5.0 HO's.

I'm not so sure about the 302 heads being more efficeient. Look at those
huge AIR bumps in the exhaust ports. I'm sure pre-AIR heads flowed much
better.

--
D.Maxwell Watson
<(email redacted)>

Was this post helpful or interesting?

Yes No Thank

Topic List Forum List Newer Older Start New Topic

Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.

Having trouble posting or changing forum settings?
Read the Forum Help (FAQ) or click Contact Support at the bottom of the page.